under_score (anonymous) says...

I don't understand what a great mind like Patrick Kelley is doing stuck in a small town newspaper like the Emporia Gazette. This guy is destined for much larger things. He should have is own feature on the Huffington Post or the DailyKos.

Patrick, can you do an investigative report on why our President still has not produced an official copy of his Birth Certificate?

Thanks!

July 14, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BrianHart (anonymous) says...

Patrick:

Senator Brownback lives in Topeka with his wife and children and travels home every weekend when the Senate is in session. When he is in DC, he stays in a one-bedroom apartment he and his wife bought in 2003. He does not live on or at C Street.

This information is readily available on the Washington Post web site or please feel to contact me at any time in the senator's office in the future to fact check anything you might need before publication.

Brian Hart
Office of U.S. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas
202-224-6521

July 14, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Is this the National Enquirer page?

July 14, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

I know it's very hot outside today, but I wish Patrick would stick to water or iced tea and lay off the liberal left-wing Kool-Aid. Too much of that stuff will lead to delusions, blatant bias, and tendencys to put a convenient self-serving spin on all communications. You've ingested WAY too much Kool-Aid, Patrick. Try some ice water... and maybe a dose of reality and truth.

July 14, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gabby (anonymous) says...

Busted!!! :-)

July 14, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pkelley (Pat Kelley) says...

Good morning all. This is a better wake-up than espresso.
This is how it stands:
Both The Associated Press and U.S. New & World Report have identified the senator as a resident of the C Street house. As you can see above, his aide Brian Hart denies it.
I would assume that Hart would know, but have not yet been able to reach him.
These are the questions I will ask him:
Has the senator ever lived at the house?
Does the senator attend functions at the house (Bible study, maybe)?
Of course, what I would really like to know is where the AP and U.S. News got their information.
Stay tuned for updates.
A retraction will certainly be forthcoming if warranted.
Thanks for being interested in something besides the Michael Jackson funeral.

July 15, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yes, I'd really like to know where Brownback attends Bible study at. We simply can't have behavior like that in our elected officials. The tolerant left simply will not tolerate it :)

What I'd really like to know is, do they preach hatred of "Whitey" and "God DAMN America" there?

July 15, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

What's with the birth certificate, under_score? You had me looking up my own birth certificate this morning, but you know what? Mine is not a good one to compare to because I was born in 1943, in the TERRITORY of Hawaii and the certificates look quite different. However, the following link makes a good point, and it is this: It wouldn't matter where Obama was born because his MOTHER is an American citizen, and that makes him an American. Why won't you accept this? Are you saying she was not an American? Incidentally, my daughter, born in Honolulu, 1963, has a birth certificate that looks just exactly like Obama's.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washi...

July 15, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Brian, I think more info is forthcoming. Perhaps you could post some links to back up your statement?

July 15, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

So liberals are told by the right to "not drink the Kool Aid" blah blah blah. But at the same time conservatives are stating that everything claimed by Brownback should be accpeted as fact. My grandpa told me if you sit on the fence you get splinters, I think I'll endure the splinters, the hippcracy around here demands it.

July 15, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gabby (anonymous) says...

Mr. Kelly, While your looking to see where Brownback gets his Bible Study, maybe you could check and see where our President gets his?

July 15, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, as long as we're talking about how terrible it is to have Bible Study, the big right-wing-fanatic conspiracies, etc..... I did see where Obama said they have private Bible Study in their own home. Sounds like a cult to me!!!!! :)

I also don't remember what poster it was that recently said something along the lines of how Obama at least doesn't make a huge point out of being a Christian like Bush did or something like that........ maybe it was madpoet? Can't remember, I apoligize if it was not..... and this is not intended to be a "return fire", just something I found interesting along that subject:

"Obama Invokes Jesus More Than Bush"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2009...

Actually, Bush couldn't even outdo Clinton....

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/comment...

But, as I said before....... if C Street preaches hatred of Whitey, and they feel like God should Damn America, and Brownback is a tenant..... then...... Brownback for President!!!!! LOL

July 15, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

From the end of the 2nd article I linked to, I think I see some relevance to this article's point: (For those who usually don't read the links)

"Also, the way in which Clinton employed these references would have scandalized the press if Bush had used them. Clinton openly said that his personal “ministry” as president was “to do the work of God here on Earth” (Temple Hills, Maryland, August 14, 1994); declared that “God’s work must be our own” (Newark, New Jersey, October 20, 1996); cited the teachings of Christ in support of federal legislation (July 26, 2000); said that his attempted impeachment was “in God’s hands” (December 18, 1998); and constantly exhorted congregations to vote for him or Al Gore or other Democrats (Alfred Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, October 29, 2000, and the Kelly Temple Church of God in Christ in Harlem, October 31, 2000, to cite just two examples).

Never heard this before? Of course, you haven’t. It was never reported. It was left to researchers to dig it out years after the fact.

I could go on and on with examples. Vice President Al Gore sounded like a Baptist preacher on the 2000 campaign trail, and Hillary Clinton obliterated any propriety with her breathtaking statements in dozens of New York City churches during her 2000 Senate campaign. (See my article, “Rev. Hillary Takes the Pulpit,” National Review, October 4, 2007.)

What I’ve noted here is the tip of an iceberg. I’ve devoted chapters and books to liberal Democrats’ extremely expressive public expressions of faith. A core element of that story is how the press embraces these expressions but then, on a dime, turns and blasts conservative Republicans for much milder statements.

Thus, I fully expect President Obama to talk about God in much stronger terms and far more often than did President Bush. Liberals will not politically crucify him as they did Bush. When the double standard is pointed out—strictly by conservatives—liberals will cover their ears, wink, and move on. At best, when confronted, they will conjure up the usual excuses as to why the reaction is different.

So, be prepared to be greatly frustrated. The press has made it abundantly clear: there are different sets of rules for conservative Christian politicians and liberal Christian politicians. "

July 15, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

This is what the Washington Post reported on June 26th:

"People familiar with the house say the downstairs is generally used for meals and prayer meetings. Volunteers help facilitate prayer meetings, they said. Residents include Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), Ensign and Coburn. None of the congressmen agreed to be interviewed for this article. But associates of some of Ensign's housemates privately worried that the other residents would be tarred by the scandals."

Please note that if the report is accurate this appears to be a bi-partisan cabal. Two of the reported members are Democrats and three Republicans. That may not be quite in keeping with the current composition of the House and Senate, but it does seem to be bi-partisan, which I take as a pretty good sign (if the Wapo piece is accurate).

Among the sinister activities the denisions practice is the annual organizing of the National Day of Prayer. God forbid! What's next if this is allowed to continue. I cringe at the thought of what these men might be plotting in the prayer closet.

Senator Brownback is not mentioned in any of their sources.

According to the piece in the Post, the house is known in the area as "the Prayer House." I'm not sure that makes it a danger to democracy, civilization, or the Beltway crowd, but I'm sure that before any retractions are offered, the media will have the villagers armed with pitchforks hunting down these religious nuts/monsters a la Frankenstein. And to think that the poor old monster wanted nothing more than to be left alone to puff on cigars and listen to Bach.

A link to the entire piece follows:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

July 15, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

It still amazes me to this day that people care so much about the personal lives of public servants. I really care less what people do in their spare time unless it spills over and has effects on their performance. You never hear anyone complain if their Financial Advisor is an S&M freak or their carpenter is gay, but by god if any politican out there does anything to sin, he/she is just unfit for office regardless of how effective they might be.

July 15, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

joejoe2 (anonymous) says...

Quote from Mr. Kelly:

"Of course, what I would really like to know is where the AP and U.S. News got their information."

Shouldn't you ask this question before you publish your opinion in the paper?

July 15, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Watch your thoughts; they become words.

Watch your words; they become actions.

Watch your actions; they become habits.

Watch your habits they become character.

Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

-----------------

What all the above has to do with politicians private conduct vs public conduct I'm not totally sure, but I just like the saying :)

July 15, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"When a church has many members who are not taught of the Spirit, evil must and will come of it. Error is sure to arise where truth is not experientially known. Spiritual ignorance will breed conceit, pride, unbelief, and a thousand other evils. With an intense zeal to do good, men have done a world of mischief through a lack of instruction in divine things. Half of the heresy in the church is not willful error but error that springs of not knowing the truth, not searching the scriptures with a teachable heart, not submitting the mind to the light of the Holy Ghost."

Charles Spurgeon

July 15, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

If you are a politician:

Watch your thoughts; they become words if

Watch your words; they become actions if

Watch your actions; they become habits if

Watch your habits they become character if

Watch your character; it becomes your destiny

else:

feel free to be yourself and not a made up entity.

Fixed it for you

July 15, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

create,

Under the law at the time of his birth and given that the President must be a "natural born citizen", not just a citizen, if the President was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii then he would in fact be ineligible for the presidency.

Regarding the authenticity of the COLB that was provided by his campain, see this article:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/at...

Where is 60 minutes when you need them?

Of course, who really cares about the constitution these days?

July 15, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

uh-oh

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE....

July 15, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Of Guns, Private Property and Judge Sotomayor

6:00 am July 15, 2009, by Bob Barr

Once again, in the still-unfolding confirmation hearing on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, we are being treated to a lesson in why the Republicans rarely achieve their goals in Washington. This is largely the result of their inability or unwillingness to play hardball; the failure to ask tough questions; and allowing nominees for high office to bloviate their way around answering direct questions.

First of all, let’s establish one ground rule: there is no legal or constitutional prohibition against requiring a nominee for the federal bench, including the United States Supreme Court, to answer probing questions about their judicial philosophy and of their views on fundamental rights. Should not this be the price they pay for confirmation? The modern notion that a nominee must be permitted to refuse to answer tough questions about whether they believe it is the job of a judge to protect fundamental liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, for example, is a made-up rule of recent decades designed by advocates for particular nominees to protect them from answering questions that might actually reveal their fundamental philosophical beliefs. (One exception to this “kid gloves” approach was the manner in which the then-Democratic majority beat up on Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s philosophy.)

Republicans consistently will come close to the brink of actually demanding real answers to relevant questions, but they then invariably draw back when confronted with the apparently impenetrable shield that, the “Supreme Court may after all one day have to render a decision on that issue, so I am bound not to reveal anything of my views on that fundamental right.” Poppycock. If we cannot find out what are the fundamental philosophical views of a prospective Supreme Court nominee, why should they even be considered for confirmation? Is there any other category of nominees for whom it is more vital that we be made privvy to their views of (and the value they place on) our fundamental rights and liberties, than prospective members of the United States Supreme Court?

July 15, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Let’s take two fundamental rights enshrined and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights: private property rights and firearms rights; the first is guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution and the latter in the Second. Judge Sotomayor was questioned about both at her hearing yesterday.

Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin asked her about her view of the fundamental right of a private property owner not to have their propertry taken by the government under condemnation proceedings just so the property could be used for a more lucrative purpose (as was allowed by the Supreme Court in the infamous, 2005 Kelo v. City of New London case that was supported by the justice Sotomayor is to replace — David Souter). When “pressed” to provide the American people her view of the importance of private property rights as opposed to forced government “takings,” Sotomayor was allowed to reveal nothing. She said she couldn’t answer such questions other than to “follow” precedent, not to “pre-judge,” and to keep “an open mind.” Boy is that encouraging — another Supreme Court justice who won’t even admit to believing in and supporting the fundamental right to protect private property against improper taking by the government.

Sotomayor’s views of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is similarly superficial and disappointing. When pressed by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah on this issue, Sotomayor once again, and repeatedly, assured us she would “bring an open mind.” Frankly, I’m ready for a Supreme Court justice that has the judicial backbone to say they actually believe in, understand, and will actually defend – through judicial decisions – those fundamental rights guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights. I’m tired of nominees saying in effect that they will “keep an open mind” on whether we even have such fundamental rights as are specified in the Bill of Rights.

The furthest Sotomayor would go on the Second Amendment question (and Hatch did press her pretty hard, but then, true to form, backed away) was to say that if the Court ever did decide in its wisdom to incorporate the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms as against state government infringement, then perhaps she might recognize it as a fundamental right! Such reasoning turns the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that our fundamental “privileges or immunities” will be protected against infringement by the states, on its head.

With confirmation questioning like this, is it any wonder our fundamental rights – which are supposed to be guaranteed by the very Constitution judges such as Sotomayor take an oath to protect and defend — are being dramatically reduced by both the Senate and the federal judges its members confirm?

July 15, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Wake me when the birth certificate fiasco gains a shred of credibility. During the election and given the extreme right opposition of Obama if there actually was any credence to that school of thought it would have come out long ago. Idiot's like Rosie O'Donnell can paint a decent argument too, does not mean that it’s not completely ludicrous.

July 15, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

actually, goodoleboy, you fixed it for YOU, not me.

Everyone should be themselves and not a made-up entity. I totally agree.

If you are a liar and a cheat in your personal life, and a saint in your public life, or visa-versa, which one is the "made-up entity"?

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) - the public often holds those who represent them or they choose to lead them to a higher standard (in some cases) than others. Kindof like we want to be represented by our best. I'll forgive and be understanding towards a minister who has made a mess of his personal life, no matter how wonderful his sermons may be, but if he makes a pattern of infidelity or cheating on his taxes I don't really care to attend church where he leads. Same if he hates white folks and America.

But that's just me. Everyone is different.

July 15, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

But we've proven that steel can melt. Cheney, Bush and Palin burned down Pallets Plus just to have an example of evidence. I haven't really followed the birth certificate thing that much but it shouldn't be that hard to bring forth evidence and put it to rest.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear something more back from Brian Hart.

Brian??????????

July 15, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

My question about the birth certificate is this, and I am not asking this in a snotty way either, I really want to know. IF there is any doubt that Obama is qualified to be President, why didn't the McCain campaign make more of it? It seems like a very straight forward situation, either he is qualified or is not, either he has a birth certificate proving it or he doesn't. Second part is, I too believed all that was necessary was to be born a US citizen. I thought if one of your parents was a citizen, you are too. My belief(right or wrong) was that natural born meant you were a citizen at birth regardless of where you were born, versus being born to non citizens then moving to the USA and becoming a citizen....I know someone on this forum knows the answer, enlighten me please.

July 15, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

BTW - disclaimer - the fact that Barney Frank is gay has absolutely nothing to do with my low opinion of him as a politician for his hypocrisy and ability to lie to the public.

Apparently, the latter has nothing to do with the opinion of those who re-elect him either.

July 15, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Everyone should be themselves and not a made-up entity. I totally agree.

If you are a liar and a cheat in your personal life, and a saint in your public life, or visa-versa, which one is the "made-up entity"?

The whole point is that people should not make up entities to start with, its recipe for disaster and the reason why so many people fail. People spend too much time trying to be someone their not and then wonder why it blows up in their face. But Drama sells right?

July 15, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

McCain wouldn't even invoke Rev. Wright so your argument falls flat there. I'm not sure McCain could fight his way out of a wet paper bag judging from the way he ran his campaign.

YY4U, the law today is not the same as back then. Here is a link from snopes which explains it in regular terms. Please note that snopes does a lot of speculation here and is arguing its case against a different allegation.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

July 15, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

YY4U, I'm fairly certain that you're joking but just in case:

First off, I think Sanford should resign. Unlike goodoleboy I think public figures should be role models and I think we can find plenty of people who are faithful to their husbands/wives who can do just as good of a job as Sanford. Secondly, I think he attracted a lot more attention to himself by refusing the money than if he had accepted it. Lastly, him using recovery money that he did not want on an affair would reflect more badly on Obama than him since the allegation is that it is wasteful.

July 15, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Sorry underscore, but your idea of citizenship doesn't wash with me. You are bending the rules with regard to the STATE of Hawaii and your use of natural born citizen. When Obama was born in 1961, Hawaii was a state; it had become a state in 1959. Prior to that, Hawaii was a U.S. territory and her people (me being one of them) were indeed citizens of the United States. Prior to Hawaii becoming a territory, she was a possession, and even then her people were citizens of the United States.

Snopes is taking some real liberties too with their idea of people in the Territory of Hawaii being just citizens as opposed to U.S. citizens. What a crock! Are they saying that the people of Puerto Rico and Guam, for example, are not U.S. citizens? Both of those are territories.

How does your idea work with regard to John McCain? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

What about anchor babies? They are born to parents who are not citizens yet their birth on U.S. soil makes them U.S. citizens.

Alfalfa, you're right. Natural born means that if either or both of your parents are American citizens, no matter where you are born, you too are a U.S. citizen. You can be born on the moon for that matter. There is only a difference between the terms natural born and naturalized.

Alfalfa, you're also right about the McCain campaign not making a big deal about Obama's birth. You're darned right they would have disputed Obama's eligibility, and strongly too had there been some disparity.

YY, thanks for the link.

July 15, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Look, if Sanford was not having an affair would you be looking for him to resign? I think its stupid how one minute conservatives think he is great for rejecting stimulous funds and consider him a presidential candidate then turn on him for something he did on his own time. That said if he used tax payer dollars for any of it then fine, get him out. But until then who cares? Judge the guy for what he was hired to do, not what how you think he should act, especially when a lot of it comes down to belief structure, which should have 0 to do with his ability to govern, as religion has never been barometer to measure one's job preformance.

July 15, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I agree with create that if McCain's camp had strongly thought there was a case over Obama's birth, they would have pushed it harder.

But then again McCain's campaign was one of the poorest-run I've seen in recent memory - LOL

Still seems to me like it should be easy to prove once and for all and lay to rest, I haven't followed it as closely but how hard can that be?

goodoleboy, I'm not using religion as a barometer to measure one's performance. Just their values and moral judgements. Of which religious and non-religious both have (or don't have, in an unfortunate number of cases). There are also plenty of Democrats who are calling for his resignation, not just conservatives. I think for many it is simply a trust issue. Maybe a person does have a good track record (so far), but people also elect people on faith and trust in what they are going to do in the future, and much like a marriage, that faith and trust can be irreparably damaged and broken. If you want to be a public figure, much as you often say (regarding Palin), you gotta realize it comes with the territory.

YY4U, I agree.

July 15, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

Goodoleboy: I have heard it said, and said it here, that if a mans wife can't trust him, neither can I. Putting aside the moral implications, someone who cheats on his wife(or vice versa) generally doesn't think twice about cheating on something else if it gets him/her what they desire. That is why I care what politicians do in their personal lives. Both Sanford and Ensign should resign, I think it is scandalous the party bigwigs aren't demanding it. After all, my party, the GOP, is the party of family values, and running off to Argentina to see your mistress ain't what I have in mind when I think about family values.

July 15, 2009 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

allintogether (anonymous) says...

Wow! I knew this day was coming. It was bound to happen. So eager to rub somebody's nose in excrement that you trip over your ideology. Brownback is not perfect by any means and I am never quick to defend a politician but is this really a story? Irrespective of Kelley's apparent inability to confirm an address and recounting the questions he should have asked before publishing this tripe after the fact. What were you trying to report?

Do opinion writers get to keep their jobs when they lose their objectivity? Or do they continue to be free to publish puff pieces on liberals and democrats and report hot garbage on conservatives and republicans? With all the hot button, critically important business going on in Washington DC today; this is what you report on? And you congratulated US for talking about something other than the Michael Jackson funeral? Wow. Smug levels must be toxic where you are.

Thank you Brian Hart for keeping Kelley honest.

July 15, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

If a tree falls in the forest....

How many politicians and public figures out there are cheating on their spouses and we don't know about it? My bet is more than you think, yet many still admire and hold them in high regard, till we find out. Then the best part is all the people that judge them, last I heard that was God's job. Who is more the fool? The fool or the fool that follows them? I say let the man finish his term and let the voters decide whether they want him back. Demanding resignation is just ridiculous.

July 15, 2009 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Patrick, And what is wrong with being interested in Micheal Jackson's funeral? Are there some hidden feelings that you'd like to share with us?"

Need an outlet to vent your true feelings? Denial is not just a river in Egypt!

July 15, 2009 at 11:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I don't know how many politicians out there are doing a "wonderful job", but in reality are taking bribes and payoffs under the table, and probably planting a few bodies in cement overshoes while doing it, or maybe they're at the bottom of a bay in Mass. somewhere, who knows. Or maybe they've got so much of the media firmly on their side nobody ever knows about it, and the "wonderful job" we are led to believe in isn't really so perfect upon closer inspection. I would like to think that somewhere, somehow, in this country, there should still be some politicians we can put some faith in to at least half-heartedly attempt to do the job we entrusted them with (yeah, I know, another of my pipe dreams), and as in most things, you have to start....... with the man (or woman) themselves. As has been stated, people should be themselves.

And what they are in one aspect of their life.............. generally shows up in the rest, sooner or later.

Observation, I got your joke, and appreciated it :)

July 16, 2009 at 12:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

In reading the linked article (the sensible one, not the one by the person with the obvious hate issues) - I'm somewhat confused by all this "shroud of secrecy" description. They organize the National Day of Prayer breakfast, many congressmen of both parties pass thru routinely for Bible studies, prayer groups, discussions, routinely invite other Congressmen in....etc, etc...... sounds pretty open to me. Nor was there any mention of denial of any of it by anyone. It was viewed as a "spiritual retreat" in the midst of the city untouched by its hectic surroundings.

Horrible, just horrible. Sounds like alot of good churches to me, actually.

But in today's anti-Christian climate, it seems like giving it any higher visibility at all would have brought down the wrath of the ACLU and Lord knows how many of those who's veins start popping if you even suggest that a Congressperson would dare look to their own beliefs and values (Christianity-wise) to help guide them in their decisions. And I know what caustic remarks will be made here about that last statement in view of Sanford & others but that is not my point.

Retreat: A place of privacy or safety (refuge).

July 16, 2009 at 1:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

create,

The argument is that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii or any US territory but that he was actually born in Kenya. Hence the reason people are asking to see his Hawaii birth certificate. The real one, not a copy. Did you check out the link here http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/at...

The only thing I wanted to point out from the Snopes article was the information about natural born citizen in regards to the law at the time of Obama's birth as it relates to his mother's age and her time out of country.

Realistically, I think Obama is probably a citizen but the fact that he hasn't provided proof has got me curious. Why doesn't he just let Hawaii release the original for people to look at?

July 16, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gabby (anonymous) says...

I don't know if Obama's birth certificate is legitimate or not, but look at this.....paragraph #4
http://www.modernghana.com/news/22637...

July 16, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gabby (anonymous) says...

For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth.
(paragraph #4 http://www.modernghana.com/news/22637... }

July 16, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Kind of the same way the Disciples of Jesus denied knowing him. For how much silver?"

Wrong. Judas betrayed him for money the apostles denied him out of fear.

John 6
70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

Matthew 26:14-16
Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus

14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him.

Mark 14:27
[ Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial ] Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: ‘ I will strike the Shepherd,And the sheep will be scattered.’

Matthew 26
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?”
They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”
67 Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?”
Peter Denies Jesus, and Weeps Bitterly

69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.”
70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.”
71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
72 But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!”
73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.”
74 Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!”
Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly.

July 16, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

gabby,

Please report the real thing. When you paraphrased, you left something out. Here, I have copied and pasted from paragraph 4 of the modernghana.com news. Please note the difference with regard to "the continent of his father's birth." Not HIS birth, his FATHER'S birth.

"For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his father's birth."

under_score,
For the sake of argument, let's say Obama was indeed born in Kenya. What difference would it make? His mother was still a U.S. citizen. Like I said, he could have been born on the moon and he'd still be a U.S. citizen because his mother was one.

As far as revealing the birth certificate, Hawaii is merely following its own rules about releasing birth certificates -- anyone's birth certificate born at any time. They don't do that.

I can only use my own case for an example. Several years ago, I had misplaced my birth certificate and needed a copy ASAP. I telephoned Bureau of Vital Statistics in Honolulu. No way would they fax me a copy. For one thing, I had to put my request IN WRITING, send $30 in money order or cashier's check, then and only then would they MAIL me a certified copy of it. The copy I finally did receive is dated and embossed with the date it was copied. Not long afterwards, I did find my original and now keep both in the same file. I took them out to compare just for the sake of argument here on this blog. While the exact same information is on the copy, it in no way looks like the original, not in shape, nor in margin lines, nor in background paper marks. And while the original does feature an embossing mark, the copy does not show it, not even a shadow of it. As I stated, the copy features its own embossing and date the copy was made.

Using the argument of the "expert" on Atlas Shrugs blog, my birth certificate is false because the copy I sent for in 1993 doesn't look at all like the 1943 original.

One thing for sure, under_score, you drove me to my files.

July 16, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

create,
"For the sake of argument, let's say Obama was indeed born in Kenya. What difference would it make? His mother was still a U.S. citizen. Like I said, he could have been born on the moon and he'd still be a U.S. citizen because his mother was one." --Not according to the law at the time regarding natural born citizens. According to the law he would not be considered a natural born citizen if he was born in Kenya.

You need to read the atlus shrugs article again. Your comparison is fine and I believe you but that is not what they are comparing. They cannot compare his original to a copy because they don't have the original. Hawaii will in fact release your birth certificate at your request. All Obama has to do is make this request. Why hasn't he? I think it is overdue at this point since we have troops refusing to follow orders from lack of proof that he has legitimate claim to the presidency.

July 16, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good catch, create. I didn't even notice that when I glanced over the article.

I think, per Snopes, a big question that remains is whether or not his mother lived in Hawaii long enough to meet the min requirements, the way I understand it. Oh well, I never intended to get this deep into it, just got my curiosity piqued for a bit....

As a natural-born citizen of some alien planet (or so many of my family/friends tell me often) - I can certainly understand the confusion...... ;-)

July 16, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hawaii refuse a direct request from the Prez? Say it isn't so!!!! :)

July 16, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

If we have troops who are refusing to follow orders because they have no proof of Obama's citizenship, then let them out of the service since they're just using that as an excuse anyway. What a crock! You need the president's citizenship in order to fight for your country? Jeez, let me outta here!

I need to go shopping or dig in my garden or cook something or work on a quilt. Auuuuuuugggggghhhhhhhh!

I will leave you with the state motto of Hawaii. Ua mau ke ea ika aina ika pono. Which means, a child of the island soil must first show i.d. if he wants a copy his birth certificate. LOL LOL LOL

July 16, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

open_eyes,

To be honest, although I've mentioned it before to get under people's skin, I've never actually taken it seriously or read anything on it. I still haven't looked into it that deeply but from what I have read it sounds like the people questioning him have some good points. The ones that try to validate the copy of the COLB that Obama's campaign provided, like the article from the latimes that create provided, all say something along the lines of "Take our word for it, it's real".

July 16, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

anybody hear any more regarding this article? Was Patrick able to get ahold of Hart? Who was right? Retraction or no retraction?

I'm sitting on pins and needles here!

July 16, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I'm mystified. I don't understand all the hulabaloo about Barack Obama's citizenship. I disagree with quite a bit (not all) of his policy, but I don't have a shred of doubt about his citizenship. He is an American citizen and all the outhouse legal wrangling in the world won't change that.

I doubt it will help, but I'll post it anyway. My niece is an American citizen who is married to a British citizen. They have two children and live on the east coast. While she was pregnant with their first child she and her husband took a long weekend and drove to Canada for a couple of days away from the grind. She wasn't expecting to have her daughter, but what started as a case of indigestion became child birth. Their daughter Becky was born in a little town clinic about thirty miles from Montreal - in Canada. Becky was born an American citizen and is still an American citizen. She is entitled to the same rights of citizenship as anyone on this forum. When she comes of age she can even run for President. Her dad can't, but she can. Her place of birth is that small clinic in Canada, but her citizenship is U.S. Technically speaking, she could claim dual citizenship, but Becky is in truth an American through and through. There is no one in the State Department, executive, legislative, judicial branches who would dispute this using the argument that her being born in Canada disqualified her from American citizenship. Homeland security isn't hunting her down, nor is INS. No one is trying to sort out hanging chads on her birth certificate. They really have better things to do with their time.

I think out time would be more profitably spent arguing the President's policies instead of ferreting out his citizenship. He is one of us and that's that!

July 16, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I have pretty much the same take on it, under_score. When I look at things that have been denied like his involvement with ACORN, didn't know (after 20 years) what got preached at his church, etc...... I guess I just am not in the camp of unquestioning believers. Character things like that make me raise my eyebrow from time to time. But like I've said, should be pretty simply for Obama to request Hawaii to present the original. Then it's case closed time. What have they got to lose?

Speaking of that.... Brain Hart.... still waiting to hear from you again on here......????????

July 16, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gabby (anonymous) says...

create. I copied the paragraph #4 from the article, from the email that I received.(it came to me just as I posted it) I didn't make any changes...so, if the article referred to the "fathers" birthplace, it was changed on the email I recieved.
I was reading some of the comments too, and they also must have read it the same way,as they were referring to it as the Barack Obama's birthplace.
Thanks for calling my attention to. I won't forward it anymore.

July 16, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gabby (anonymous) says...

CREATE...This is a follow up on what I just told you about the paragraph #4...
I copied and pasted it when I posted it earlier today...and it did say exctly what is on my post.."the continent of his birthplace"...I just went to look to double check it, because I did not remember it saying anything about his fathers birthplace....The article has that sentence..it is now in bright blue writing... righting..it has been changed...the FATHER was added. I have asked the people that I emailed the article to, and they said that when they read it earlier there was nothing about the FATHER in it...so, it has been changed since I got it. I did not ever make any changes in it...but someone has....
I know it sounds like I am making it up..but, the people that sent it to me, and those that received it from me, all said that it did not read the way you told me...or that you copied and pasted it.
I have no reason to change it...but, whoever did, changed it, and from my computer it's now in bright blue lettering.

July 16, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

gabby, now that you mention it, I thought it was funny when I went back and re-read it that I didn't remember it being in bold blue the first time.

And I'm not the only one who caught it:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/african-m...

July 16, 2009 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

When I read it there was white out on my computer screen over where it said "father". I scratched the white out off and sure enough it said "father" underneath. Bush will stop at nothing to stay in the White House and keep Obama from being elected. It's all very conspiracyish and racialisticfull.

July 16, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

How many times have mistakes been made in articles in the Gazette where the content is questioned because of wording. Just last week, wording regarding Jesse Solis being a "veteran Emporian" was questioned (be me) and it was changed by Gwen to reflect the fact that Solis is not a veteran. However since the article was about signs for veterans, the phrase was incorrect because it suggested that Solis was a veteran.

That said, I'd say that the original Ghana news article used the wrong phrase and has since been corrected. I'm not trying to adjust things to agree with me, I'm just suggesting that the original article was phrased incorrectly to begin with.

My best guess is that some eagle-eye caught the mistaken reference and set mischief afoot by running it in an e-mail that quickly made its way around the world.

July 16, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

Speaking of Africa, did you know George W Bush did more to help alleviate the pain and suffering of people living on the continent of Africa than any Presdient before him?

I guess he only hates black people living in New Orleans.

July 16, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

True, create, look at the original reason we're on this thread. But did you read the link I posted? Now that I've gotten a little more into it, it's kinda fun. Like his grandmother, half-sisters & brothers say he was born there, the grandmother claims to have been present at his birth. And over there the entire village isn't concerned about the Hawaii claim - their big beef is the argument over whether he was born in Kenya or Ghana. But then again they might just all be lying to get their 15 minutes of fame. Interesting nonetheless.

Besides, Sarah Palin could see Hawaii from her rooftap at the time of his supposed delivery in Hawaii and did not witness it. (Lets overlook the fact for the time being that she hadn't been born yet).

under_score, yes, that's common knowledge among Africans and conservatives. But I'm sure he did it because there's oil in them thar hills! :)

July 16, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

These types of conspiracy theories are very bi-partisan. The same types of claims were made about Barry Goldwater when he ran for President. He was born in Arizona when it was only a territory and not one of the United States.

The rumor mill was in full bloom when George Romney, another Republican, was vying for the Republican nomination for President or Vice President (I can't remember which). There were rumors that he was Canadian born and not entitled to U.S. citizenship.

This isn't the first time someone has cooked up a conspiracy where none existed, and it won't be the last. There are a significant number of people who delight in this sort of thing, regardless of the facts or case law (the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795).

Barack Obama is one of us! He has been elected, sworn in, formed a legislative agenda, and is trying to move it forward. As I said before, time would be spent more profitably asking the difficult (and sensible) questions about that agenda.

July 16, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

under_score (anonymous) says...

Agreed, Obama should just obtain and present his birth certificate so we can move forward. He is trying to run a transparent presidency is he not? *laughs*

July 16, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yeah, here's where I bring up the old fabricated hoax story about Palin/Africa yet AGAIN (anyone getting sick of it/me yet?). I'm sure it was done by Republicans, since it's an old tried and true tactic of theirs, YY ;-). But they learned it from the best! LOL
I'm sure everyone is aware of what came out of the supposed "Kill Him" story during a McCain campaign rally...... I posted the story on that long ago.....

And we can just go on and on and on with equal mud slung from both sides. But aren't mudbaths supposed to be some miracle-healing practice at some spas or something? :)

Again.... I agree. Obama is one of us. Just present the birth certificate (I'm sure he has the presidential powers to do so) and put it all to rest.

So, back to the subject at hand (what? Me? Open_eyes stray off subject? Perish the thought!!! LOL).

Speaking of basil.... no, wait. Wrong subject. Sorry.

I'm sure the Prayer House is probably undercover for a forged birth-certificate ring. The Repubs were getting too close to blowing the lid off the whole operation, so the Dems conconcted a story about it being a Christian organization, which we know in today's American climate is about as evil as it gets. Nothing says evil like being linked to Christianity these days. All those haters praying for forgiveness and understanding and other such intolerant nonesense, instead of accepting absolutely no other view than their own like the "true" tolerant practice.... yikes I'm getting snarky in my old age....

And I'm beginning to wonder why we haven't heard anything back from Brian Hart. Brian???? You're silence is beginning to look suspicious!

Inquiring Minds want to Know!!!!!

July 16, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

open_eyes, yes, I can just imagine all those folks in Kenya wanting to lay claim to the POTUS. It sure would make them look important.

Case in point. When I was still in high school, Hawaii passed a law regarding opening up some of the land for private ownership for people of 1/8th Hawaiian blood. Until then, most of the land in Hawaii was either federal or state or owned by the estates of the five original missionary families who went to Hawaii in the 1700's and claimed much of the land by marrying royalty. Very little fee simple real estate was available.

Well, wouldn't you know, every Hawaiian and his cousin stood up to proclaim blood rights. Some were as light-skinned and "haole" (white) as can be. And by golly, a great many were even related to King Kamehameha I himself and were ready to prove it by hook or by crook. What a mess.

Those Kenyans remind me of the Hawaii land fiasco. They all view this as a gravy train and everybody wants a ride.

By the way, the last time I went home for a visit, I took a quick tour of the area that had been set aside for "proud" Hawaiian ownership. How sad. Once beautiful valley land had been all cut up into tiny lots. "Homes" built of plywood and corrugated iron or aluminum or fiberglass had been thrown together. Litter was everywhere. Dirt roads were mostly mud with the daily rainfall in the valley. What a shame. It would have been better to leave it as a pristeen valley owned by the state where at least the wildlife would have been protected.

July 16, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Speaking of tried and true tactics, can't these 2 kids ever just grow up and play nice with each other? :)

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2009...

July 16, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )